Appeal 2005-2193
Application 09/385,405
Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 82 are untimely and will not be
considered. Appellant further argues that there is no motivation for one of
ordinary skill in the art to use a tangential flow filter in the process of
Schmidt. This is because, according to Appellant, no first component is
present in the waste stream of Schmidt. This argument fails for the reasons
stated above. Again, this argument is based upon an overly narrow
interpretation of “first component” in claim 71. Claim 74 does not further
limit “first component.”
The subject Request has been granted to the extent that the Decision
has been reconsidered, but is denied with respect to making any changes
therein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
DENIED
clj
Watov & Kipnes PC
P.O. Box 247
Princeton Junction, NJ 08550
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: November 3, 2007